Criminal Responsibility
Idn-Tames v United States
Delineated standards for experts and their testimony (in particular here, for Battered Women's Syndrome).
D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals heard the case based on two issues:
1 If the testimony was admissible
2 If the information had greater probative value than prejudicial impact.
These two issues boiled down to the following requirements for expert testimony:
1 The subject matter must be beyond what is expected from “the average layman,”
2 The witness must have sufficient skill/knowledge/experience that their testimony would “probably” assist the trier of fact in their search for the truth
3 The testimony must meet admissibility standards first (Daubert or Frye), otherwise, it is inadmissible.
Lake v Cameron
A civilly committed patient CANNOT be involuntarily held in a hospital if there are safer and less restrictive treatment alternatives available
Estelle v Gamble
Prisoners DO have a constitutional right to treatment
Rennie v Klien
[In New Jersey] a court order is NOT required to administer medication to civilly committed psychiatric patients
Brown v Mississippi
Convictions obtained through brutality and violence are INCONSISTENT with the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment
Kansas v Cheever
It is NOT unconstitutional for prosecution to present evidence from the court-ordered mental evaluation to rebut an affirmative defense based on mental incapacity
Baxtrom v Herold
Individuals being released from prison CANNOT be civilly committed without a jury determination of commitment
Addington v Texas
“Clear and convincing” IS the burden of proof for civil commitment
Jones v United States
NGRI acquittees CAN be subject to involuntary and indefinite commitment.
If police refuse to honor a defendant’s request to consult counsel during the course of an interrogation, it DOES violate “assistance of counsel” as delineated in the 6th Amendment and renders any incriminating statements elicited by police inadmissible
People v Saille
Evidence of voluntary intoxication CAN be used as a defense to reduce murder to manslaughter if the defendant can show that the intoxication prevented him from forming the specific intent to commit murder
Lessard v Schmidt
Those facing civil commitment SHOULD be afforded the same due process protections provided in criminal proceedings
Parham v JR
Adversarial hearings are NOT required for the commitment of a juvenile whose parents or guardian requested the commitment
Judicial hearings about medication are NOT required to satisfy due process for prisoners found to be dangerous and refusing psychiatric medication
SCOTUS ruled Harper had a protected liberty interest in avoiding unwanted medication, but that it must also be balanced against the state’s interest for “prison safety and security.” One must consider, (1) whether there is a legitimate state interest in combating danger posed by a mentally ill and violent inmate and (2) there is little dispute that proper use of medications is an effective means of treating the mental illness.
(1) Competency hearings are not required if both parties stipulate to the findings of competency evaluations, (2) A court can impose an insanity defense onto a defendant against their desires
Montana v Egelhoff
States ARE allowed disallow evidence of intoxication, based on common law processes that support excluding such evidence
Individuals committed for MI/MR ARE entitled to “minimally adequate” standards for psychiatric treatment
Roger v Okin
Psychiatric patients ARE entitled to full evidentiary hearings before receiving involuntary (medication) treatment
Zinerman v Burch
Incompetent individuals CANNOT consent to voluntary hospitalization
Miranda v Arizona
Police ARE required to inform a suspect of their rights to remain silent and have an attorney present
Clark v Arizona
A defendant does NOT have a 14th Amendment due process right to present expert evidence about his mental state, outside of an insanity plea, to counter prosecution’s evidence of criminal intent
O'Conner v Donaldson
Mentally ill persons CANNOT be involuntarily hospitalized if they are not dangerous
Youngburg v Romeo
The 14th Amd. right to liberty DOES INCLUDE freedom from bodily restraint, safe conditions, and minimally adequate skills to reduce need for restraint for civilly committed ID patients
Heller v Doe
Kentucky’s involuntary commitment procedures for those who are MR DO NOT violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
Level of scrutiny (rational[1] basis) was deemed appropriate for this case. In addition, it was not a violation of the equal protection clause to have (1) different standards of proof for the commitment of the ID (clear and convincing) and the SMI (beyond a reasonable doubt), or for (2) family members to be permitted to take part in MR/ID hearings and not in SMI hearings (due to the nature/course of MR/ID).
[1]Rational Basis Test
Primary tabs
Overview
The rational basis test is a judicial review test. A judicial review test is what courts use to determine the constitutionality of a statute or ordinance.
The Requirements of the Test
To pass the rational basis test, the statute or ordinance must have a legitimate state interest, and there must be a rational connection between the statute's/ordinance's means and goals.
Rational Basis Test Comparison
There are three judicial review tests: the rational basis test, the intermediate scrutiny test, and the strict scrutiny test. The intermediate scrutiny test and the strict scrutiny test are considered more stringent than the rational basis test.
The rational basis test is generally used when in cases where no fundamental rights or suspect classifications are at issue.
The rational basis test is also referred to as "rational review."
A defendant CAN plead guilty and still maintain their innocence